Elections are approaching. Political parties are writing manifestos, making their promises and commitments public. Words like prosperity, good governance, employment, infrastructure will be repeated this time too, as always. However, there is one serious issue that remains missing in every manifesto, and that is—art, film, theater, and culture!

The state's approach to art and literature is wrong. It is seen only as 'entertainment', a leisure activity or a 'luxury'. First, food, shelter, clothing and finally entertainment are the order of the day in our society. Everything is prioritized accordingly. But, in reality, art should be seen as a 'soft power'. 

Today's world and our own social reality have proven that democracy is incomplete without art. And, without culture, a nation is directionless. Therefore, film is not just entertainment. It changes people's thinking. It has a profound impact on values ​​and decisions. Therefore, just as land had to be conquered to conquer the world in the past, in the present time, that victory can be achieved through film. From tourism, our philosophy, beliefs and diversity can reach the whole world through film. 

A person can understand a country they have never been to through film, a film makes them feel the suffering, struggle, displacement, love, compassion and anger of a community at once. A single film changes their whole outlook on life. People change the way they see themselves, the way they understand society, and the meaning of their relationship with the state. This is why Bollywood actors are known all over the world. Korean films and dramas have spread their language and tourism around the world. European films have become a debate on philosophy and humanity. All these examples show that film is the benign power of the state. Therefore, our opinion is that it should be considered as the first necessity for the expansion of the state rather than an afterthought. And, I think, the time has come for us to have a very serious debate on the future and existence of our film. 

In a multilingual and multicultural country like Nepal, film is not just an industry, it is a question of cultural existence and future. There are more than 122 languages ​​in Nepal. These languages ​​are not 'regional', all are living civilizations of the Nepali nation. Tharu language films speak the history of the Terai. Tamang language films bring back the memory of the mountains. Stories in Maithili, Limbu, Newari, Gurung, Sherpa or Doteli languages ​​present their own vision of life, their own morality, their own sense of beauty. If these stories are lost, not only the language is lost - collective memory, folk knowledge, the wisdom of lifestyle and the philosophy of life are also lost. Therefore, art is a subject directly linked to 'language and identity'. But, what is the reality today? Many films made in the mother tongue are deprived of budget, theater, promotion and distribution. There is no budget, no market, no audience. This shrinks this diversity. The problem is not the language, but the narrowing of the perspective. Therefore, unless the state and the party see it as 'national heritage', it is not possible to make an inclusive film. Therefore, it is essential to clearly include the issues of mother tongue films, original storytelling, cultural archiving and multilingual distribution in the manifestos of the parties.

If we look at the landscape of world cinema, its practice is visible. Hollywood has influenced the world through the combination of story, technology and market. Films from neighboring India have created a huge audience through language, music, and stardom. Korean films and series, along with the state's long-term cultural policy and private sector investment, have created a cultural agenda like the Korean Wave, which has increased tourism, spread the language, and increased production and branding. Now, no one needs to tell us anything about Korean food, language, clothing, and the tourist areas there. Their films have instilled those topics in our minds in an unconscious way. Even though that country has not reached us, Korea has come to us through films. We did not have to learn Hindi, Hindi films taught us. Therefore, films should be included at the policy level in the same form to take our diverse languages, cultures, and philosophies to places that have not reached us.

films can carry a country abroad. Therefore, films are a suitable medium to take a country abroad. European films have taken a different path—by becoming a medium of philosophy, human rights, social justice, and artistic freedom, they leave a big impact even in small markets. Nepal should also make its story, geography, and philosophy of life a medium of communication with the world through film. Film can be a 'bridge' for tourism promotion, language preservation, and international cooperation. For this, the manifesto of the parties should mention 'film-national interest'.

However, the understanding of this sector among those in the leadership of our state or among citizens and stakeholders is not sufficient. We have experienced that if a teacher meets a student in the hall on Saturday, he will make a khukura on Sunday. Film was/is understood to be only entertainment or only information or only communication. However, it is not seen as culture and literature. Film is still seen as a sector that is considered 'degenerate'. That is why we have to continue to operate on the Film Sector Act of 2026. If it was considered necessary, it would definitely have been given priority. After 56 years, our Film Act is finally going to be presented in the National Assembly. That is why we are lobbying for a new law. There is also a lack of film literacy among our citizens. If we could have an international festival or an international treaty on film with various countries, the way we look at our films would have completely changed.

Those who go to parliament through parliamentary elections are the ones who go to make laws. Therefore, our demand is that the Film Bill be passed as per the suggestions given by the stakeholders. That is, the 56-year-old act should be made relevant to the present times. The film censor should be relevant to the present times. The censor should classify it, not control it. So that the filmmakers do not lose the right to make films as they like. A modern classification system that strikes a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility is the hallmark of a democratic state.

Even if we look at the budget, very little money is allocated to the film sector. Only 2-3 crore rupees are sent to the Film Development Board. That amount is also used for the administrative expenses of the board. Apart from that, the 14-15 crore rupees that come from showing foreign films. The idea that Nepali films will be promoted with that tax money is contradictory. In fact, now Nepali films are barely reaching foreign festivals. However, tickets to that festival are not in the pocket. Investment in films should be made in the same field. For a film to reach such a festival means that it is a big advertisement for the country and its culture. Our language, lifestyle and life also reach there.

A good budget is allocated for sports in our country. If a player wins something in another country, they are given lakhs of rupees as gifts. There are councils in every district, which also honor the players with a good amount of money. A film going to an important festival is like a player reaching the World Cup. Our lifestyle and way of life reach there along with the film. However, the situation is that even when a film reaches abroad, the embassy of the respective country is not enough to encourage it. If the investment made in football can be made in films, the benefits it will give are no different from sports. Therefore, films should be prioritized.

Budget alone is not everything. If budget alone were the only thing, the commercial houses in Nepal would have printed money through films. A film is only good if all aspects of production are strong. Good music helps films. Good literature strengthens films. It is not that we are far behind in terms of technology. I see the importance of including it in the education system to explain the need for films in particular. Film is a ‘visual’ medium. This is the most effective medium now. My children speak Hindi with pleasure after watching the ‘Motu-Patlu’ series. The impact of films is visible there. When Sumana Shrestha was in the Ministry of Education, I had tried, but there were limitations in many areas, from the budget. Where will the country go if we do not invest in children? If these children are not taught about their identity and roots, what kind of accidents will happen in the future? For example, Tamang children will not be able to speak Tamang, and Newar children will not be able to speak Nepali. Therefore, ‘Children’s Cinema’ can also be made addressing this issue. The reason is that history can be understood through films, philosophy can be learned through stories and plays. Democracy can be practiced through debates and roles on stage. Art education is not only the production of artists, but also the production of conscious citizens.

Today we talk about ‘critical thinking’, but we do not give students the practice of ‘understanding stories, reading scenes, debating, and empathizing’ in schools. Art and cinema education increases linguistic ability, cultural confidence, creative entrepreneurship, and social sensitivity. Therefore, the election manifestos of the parties should speak clearly—art education related to visual storytelling, drama, folk art, and local history, practical training such as film studies, script, acting, directing, sound, camera, and editing at the college level, and advanced studies covering cinema + philosophy + technology (AI, VR, archive, data) at the university level are needed. This will prepare a new generation within the country, reduce migration, and increase employment in the creative economy. For one, this sector has been recognized as an industry, but various issues that will give us concessions accordingly have not been implemented. 

In this context, the most sensitive debate today, artificial intelligence (AI), should not be left out of the manifesto. AI can write stories, compose music, create visuals, design posters, dub and subtitling. This is not a matter of fear, but without a clear policy, it can also be a risk for both artists and entrepreneurs. AI should be used as an auxiliary tool, not in place of the creator. Early drafts of scripts, research, visual previews, editing assistance, subtitling, archive management - in these areas, AI increases productivity. However, the 'soul' of a story comes from human experience - pain, love, compassion, guilt, forgiveness, class struggle, identity conflict. Algorithms can imitate these things, but they cannot live and understand them like humans.

Therefore, the manifesto must contain at least four commitments regarding AI: First, transparently mention the credit and role of the human artist/writer/musician/designer in content that uses AI. Second, protect royalties and intellectual property rights. Third, public programs for AI literacy and tool training for artists and technicians. Fourth, legal standards are needed to prevent risks such as unauthorized data-scapping, misuse of face/voice, and digital imitation (deepfakes). If there is a policy to utilize AI, Nepal can compete with the world and also secure the future of its own artists. 

The policy will not be successful without clarifying responsibilities in the federal structure. The local level can promote films and cultural activities based on local stories—local film festivals, village/town-level theater spaces, small grants for the production of local language content, school-community theaters. Or some kind of small film festival. The provincial level can develop film funds, studios, post-production facilities, training centers, and co-production networks. The federal government should open the legal door to international co-production, provide tax breaks and insurance incentives, and clarify digital policies. The policy manifesto will be just paper without a clear framework of ‘who will do what?’.

The arts sector will not be sustainable without the protection of artists and technicians. An artist creates emotions. But he also needs food, health, respect, and a safe work environment. Minimum wage, social security, health insurance, accident insurance, labor contracts, and career security—these issues should be clearly written in the manifesto. Thousands of technicians working on film sets, actors sweating on stage, creators giving their lives in writing and music—all of these fall under the category of ‘employment’. It is unfair to keep them unsafe in the name of ‘hobby’.

Political parties should understand—art is not an object to be used, but a medium for dialogue. Film asks questions, criticizes, and raises awareness. In a democracy, this is not a threat, it is a necessity. Today, parties talk about ‘youth’ and ‘new’, but if they do not give space to the language of youth—cinema, music, and digital art—in their manifestos, that issue becomes hollow. Now parties should see that ‘film is our future’. 

‘उहाँहरूले हामीलाई कसरी हेर्ने ?’ यस गम्भीर विषयमा छलफल नै गर्न चाहनुहुन्छ भने पनि हामी तयार छौं— दलहरूसँग बहस र कुराकानीका लागि । विकास बोर्डलाई स्वायत्त बनाउनुपर्ने हाम्रो माग हो । योभन्दा अगाडि जो सरकारमा आउँछ, त्यही सरकारको भजन गाउने व्यक्तिलाई बोर्डमा राखिदिने काम भयो । दलीय भर्तीकरण भयो त्यहाँ । त्यसैले बोर्डलाई कसरी लचिलो र स्वायत्त बनाउने भन्ने सन्देशसहित हामी सरोकारवालाले विधेयकमाथि बुझाएको सुझाव स्पष्ट छ । त्यसलाई लागू गरियो भने बोर्ड स्वायत्त बन्ने थियो । 

खासमा अहिलेसम्ममा हाम्रो हुर्काइ नै निषेधको हुर्काइ भयो । बच्चा हुर्काउँदा पनि ‘त्यहाँ नजा, त्यो नगर’ भनिन्छ । तर, बोर्डले त हामीलाई ‘अगाडि बढ, यो–यो गल्ती नगर्नु, बाँकी म छु’ भनेर आत्मविश्वास दिनुपर्ने ठाउँमा हामीलाई निषेधको व्यवहार गर्छ सेन्सरले । एक १८ वर्षको युवासँग जसरी प्रधानमन्त्री छान्ने अधिकार हुन्छ, त्यही उमेरको फिल्मकर्मीसँग फिल्म बनाउने अधिकार हुन्छ । उसलाई अविश्वास गर्नु उसको सार्वभौमिकता र निर्णय अधिकारमाथि नै हनन हो । त्यसैले फिल्मलाई हेर्ने नजरमै परिवर्तन भयो भने फिल्मको भविष्य उज्यालो छ । 

अन्ततः कला र फिल्म कुनै दलको होइन, राष्ट्रको विषय हो । घोषणापत्रमा सडक र पुलसँगै कला र संस्कृति पनि लेखिनुपर्छ । बजेटसँगै भावना लेखिनुपर्छ । नीति निर्माणमा केवल कागजको संख्या होइन, नागरिकको संवेदनशीलता पनि गणना हुनुपर्छ । किनकि कलाबिना राष्ट्र कठोर हुन्छ । र, संस्कृतिबिना राजनीति दिशाहीन । यदि दलहरूले सचेत रूपमा कला, सिनेमा र संस्कृतिलाई केन्द्रमा राखे भने त्यसको परिणाम केवल फिल्म उद्योगमा होइन– समाजको चेतनामा, नागरिकको नैतिकतामा र नेपालका १ सय २२ भाषाको भविष्यमै देखिनेछ ।